Across the football world, supporters are being exploited out of their hard-earned cash more than ever, but Liverpool have, sometimes reluctantly, dragged themselves along with this hard, financial reality. This is to be applauded for its moral intentions, while at the same time leaving the club open to accusations of being too slow to accept new circumstances. That’s unfair. The club hasn’t failed to recognise what needed to be done, they’ve just had to tread with more care than some rivals.
It’s been an uncomfortable contradiction. The willingness of fans to accept the American takeover – which would surely have prompted irresistible opposition at boardroom and supporter level ten years ago – shows how far opinion has forcibly shifted.
The roots of many of the financial problems which prompted the sale stem from the golden period of the 1970s and 80s.
While Manchester United toiled on the pitch, off it they were quick to exploit their global ‘brand’ name. Despite fewer European Cup and League titles than Liverpool, they justifiably claim the title biggest club in Britain because they had the foundation in place to benefit from the Sky revolution.
They consolidated their market position while Liverpool were collecting trophies but priding themselves on being the family club which didn’t need to ‘sell its soul’ to maintain success.
To suggest the Reds were Luddite in their approach would be misplaced romanticism, of course.
They were the first club in England to agree a shirt sponsorship deal as Hitachi TVs and videos became the essential purchase for Kopites in the early 1980s.
But if Liverpool could be seen as pioneers who had a vision of how the football landscape was changing, they seemed paralysed by the fear of brazenly copying United to exploit the fact. The structure of the club hasn’t changed since the 1960s. The fans liked it exactly how it was. Who, in 1990, would have thought a 17-year title drought was on the horizon?
There has never been a commercial director at Anfield, nor a department set up solely to execute policies in this field. In recent times, Granada held responsibility for the commercial strategy and were blamed for a poor shirt sponsorship deal with Carlsberg in 2005, just before Liverpool’s Champions League win. However, they are also chiefly responsible for the unqualified success of website liverpoolfc.tv.
They’ve now sold their shares and the future of the joint venture company set up in 1999 will also be high on the Americans’ agenda if Granada pull out of the club completely, as expected.
Rumours are rife Hicks and Gillett have been in talks with Ian Todd from the hugely influential International Management Group and his name has cropped up as a possible appointment to oversee commercial activities. Todd has most recently been Nike’s Vice President for Global Sports Marketing.
Whether this is little more than an unsubstantiated city rumour remains to be seen, but it would certainly underline the new owners’ intentions.
For all the talk of ‘tradition’ and ‘heritage’, no-one can deny Gillett and Hicks have ultimately bought Liverpool to make money.
If they do so, it will be mutually beneficial to all sides.
The more they make, the more will be available to the manager, the more seats will be filled and the more merchandise will be sold.
If the Americans can achieve this by keeping ticket prices among the lowest in the land, and without making their hardcore supporters feel like little more than consumers, they’ll be respected in the same way as departing chairman David Moores.
After years of takeover fatigue, Gillett and Hicks may be benefiting from sheer good timing.
The sight of the ‘McDonald’s Kop’ caused a commotion ten years ago.
How revealing it is, then, that the revelation the new stadium on Stanley Park will definitely be named with the help of a sponsor’s logo hasn’t even prompted a letter of protest to the ECHO.
TOMORROW PART TWO: Getting it right on the stadium
What do others make of this article?
IMO if the rumours are true about the Nike Marketing VP jumping ship to us, it can only be a good thing. They are the biggest sports brand in the world by an absolute mile.
Also the last sentance intrigues me.....have the naming rights been sold already...or have they made the decision that the stadium rights WILL be sold?
Tommorows follow up should be interesting.
It’s been an uncomfortable contradiction. The willingness of fans to accept the American takeover – which would surely have prompted irresistible opposition at boardroom and supporter level ten years ago – shows how far opinion has forcibly shifted.
The roots of many of the financial problems which prompted the sale stem from the golden period of the 1970s and 80s.
While Manchester United toiled on the pitch, off it they were quick to exploit their global ‘brand’ name. Despite fewer European Cup and League titles than Liverpool, they justifiably claim the title biggest club in Britain because they had the foundation in place to benefit from the Sky revolution.
They consolidated their market position while Liverpool were collecting trophies but priding themselves on being the family club which didn’t need to ‘sell its soul’ to maintain success.
To suggest the Reds were Luddite in their approach would be misplaced romanticism, of course.
They were the first club in England to agree a shirt sponsorship deal as Hitachi TVs and videos became the essential purchase for Kopites in the early 1980s.
But if Liverpool could be seen as pioneers who had a vision of how the football landscape was changing, they seemed paralysed by the fear of brazenly copying United to exploit the fact. The structure of the club hasn’t changed since the 1960s. The fans liked it exactly how it was. Who, in 1990, would have thought a 17-year title drought was on the horizon?
There has never been a commercial director at Anfield, nor a department set up solely to execute policies in this field. In recent times, Granada held responsibility for the commercial strategy and were blamed for a poor shirt sponsorship deal with Carlsberg in 2005, just before Liverpool’s Champions League win. However, they are also chiefly responsible for the unqualified success of website liverpoolfc.tv.
They’ve now sold their shares and the future of the joint venture company set up in 1999 will also be high on the Americans’ agenda if Granada pull out of the club completely, as expected.
Rumours are rife Hicks and Gillett have been in talks with Ian Todd from the hugely influential International Management Group and his name has cropped up as a possible appointment to oversee commercial activities. Todd has most recently been Nike’s Vice President for Global Sports Marketing.
Whether this is little more than an unsubstantiated city rumour remains to be seen, but it would certainly underline the new owners’ intentions.
For all the talk of ‘tradition’ and ‘heritage’, no-one can deny Gillett and Hicks have ultimately bought Liverpool to make money.
If they do so, it will be mutually beneficial to all sides.
The more they make, the more will be available to the manager, the more seats will be filled and the more merchandise will be sold.
If the Americans can achieve this by keeping ticket prices among the lowest in the land, and without making their hardcore supporters feel like little more than consumers, they’ll be respected in the same way as departing chairman David Moores.
After years of takeover fatigue, Gillett and Hicks may be benefiting from sheer good timing.
The sight of the ‘McDonald’s Kop’ caused a commotion ten years ago.
How revealing it is, then, that the revelation the new stadium on Stanley Park will definitely be named with the help of a sponsor’s logo hasn’t even prompted a letter of protest to the ECHO.
TOMORROW PART TWO: Getting it right on the stadium
What do others make of this article?
IMO if the rumours are true about the Nike Marketing VP jumping ship to us, it can only be a good thing. They are the biggest sports brand in the world by an absolute mile.
Also the last sentance intrigues me.....have the naming rights been sold already...or have they made the decision that the stadium rights WILL be sold?
Tommorows follow up should be interesting.
Comment